If you see the enemy forces, or get a team report of enemy forces using the opposite side of the map on for example Pacific Threat, you can drop your current activity and traverse directly to that enemy group unless they are naval units hugging the map border.
This is my problem with SG. You will ALWAYS see the enemy activities, and you will NEVER be able to directly engage them unless you either drive through their base or all the way back through yours. Adding air units to "remedy" the attacking portion will result in air units dominating everything people do, and naval units would not work because for naval gameplay to function you need a sizable body of water, which means you need to make the map big - which in turn means losing vehicle access is a death sentence.
It is a circle, this cannot work. At least half the matches will end within 5 minutes because both teams race using a different lane and attempt to blow up the opposing base faster then the other team - specifically the War Factories.
But one way that you could redeem it, at least in part, is by not making it a circle, but instead a figure 8 design; Two bases north and south with naval play, with a central segment comparable to a piece of cheese; Lots of submarine firing holes, but everything can traverse over it. Essentially very comparable to Pacific Threat but with the bases and lanes more directly facing each other. I'd personally make this center segment something industrial to set it apart from Pacific Threat.
But then you get to my other point; So much changes go into this design that it won't be the same level anymore.
That said if there is interest in such a figure 8 type of naval map then perhaps I could put it on my list after the desert map but please keep in mind that the desert map is a project far from completion due to technical issues with 3DS Max (which will affect any level project I work on including a new level). Maybe @ChopBam can find the time for something of this nature.

Difference with all those maps and Shallow Grave is that you can still attack the enemy. What do you do if you attack on lane A and the enemy uses lane B? You can see each other from across the map and end up having to make this constant awkward decision of driving back to defend or not, so it ends up with a lot of driving and not much fighting. Additionally, it is a War Factory dependent map. Losing it means you have to walk all the way around the puddle of water in the middle, which in a sense makes it comparable to having to play Siege without access to vehicles, but worse, as most of the map provides no infantry cover or passages (unless those were added).
The map could work but it would have to have a scale reduction and a lot of more interesting terrain, essentially it needs to be remade from scratch and by the end of that process it would not look like SG any longer regardless. 😉
And I'd like to think the reasons for the Volcano removal were the fact that it was just a heightfield-type level with a few objects tossed onto it, and you know, the lack of an actual volcano. The hill with a darker patch of grass on top really did not count.
Anyhow, it is up to Pushwall to decide what goes into the game. I personally just think there are more interesting things on the list!

That reminds me of this thing I had to cancel because of graphical inconsistencies in-game; https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7fULGRONJ7dbTg1VUl5UmdERTA
Run it in W3D viewer and kill scene light for night time INTENDED appearance (in-game it is just an orange glow-plane unfortunately).
Edit: My current and latest W3D Viewer also doesn't render it correctly.

I've never seen games with level specific version numbers (publicly visible). It also doesn't say anything. What can you know that is different in 1.0 versus 2.0? There could be zero changes for all you would know.
The pop-up route to highlight key changes in an update is a certain way to highlight them to people who do not read forums. The highlights could use more approachable language to form them, so instead of the usual, borderline political tidy patch notes with precise information, the highlight lines would say "We fixed this map you didn't like!".

The pop-up thing is possible because we've had it happen recently. On first log-in the game would inform you of the help key binding.
Taking this logic and making it a regular thing each update wouldn't be a far stretch.
What might not be possible right now without code changes however is adding the basic formatting stuff I mentioned. But, I don't think it is that far out of a concept, as it is literally just several strings in a GUI box (two of which never need to be updated) instead of one string, and a new GUI graphic for the window background.

Most people do not care to share their opinion, or to get informed of changes. Usually this stems from two common reasons; They do not comprehend the English language sufficiently, or they come from a gaming background where changes rarely occur and they simply maintain that ideology.
If you gave a player from Renegade (2001) a copy of APB his first instinct would be to take it as it is and expect nothing to change about it as this would be the correct assumption in his prior experience.
But while the language issue cannot be addressed by anyone here, what CAN be done is create more awareness of development. One very simple thing that could be done (on paper), is to implement a weekly login welcome message IN-GAME that utilizes the unit help menu logic. Every week (or every time a new update is pushed) users, upon first-login, could get a "Recent Changes" pop-up that in quick summary lists important changes - similar to Pushwall's patch note bold changes in terms of what they highlight, and with less words.
The closing line should, like the opening line, always be the same and read: For more information visit w3dhub.com.
In-game pop ups are in your face, you cannot un-see them, you cannot miss them. Pretty much all modern games use them to tell players, "HEY YOU! THIS IS HAPPENING!".
And because it'd be a weekly or update based thing, no one will get spammed with it.
The only thing that would make this more lovely is if the help pop-up allowed a little bit of basic text formatting, even something as simple as dividing the pop-up into 3 separate string inputs positioned just slightly further apart (vertically), while allowing a single custom GUI graphic to act as a background image (so you can create some horizontal rows or basic/generic, non-specific artwork to make pop-up windows look more appealing).
But yeah, sort of maybe off topic again? I don't know, i think it might be quite relevant for these two maps. Awareness of changes has always been a problem.

Maybe do an evening where you run simple waters and disliked waters side by side for a feedback session.
As for the map rotation thing, I was merely interested in its potential, I never said it should be an APB thing.

More like Shallow Gameplay.
It was the most one dimensional level of older APB iterations. If you thought Siege was repetitive now, then clearly your memory of SG is tainted by rose tinted glasses.
SG was a circle, literally just a circle, two simple lanes that were always in perfect view of each other, making attacks visible while they were forming up in bases, and with simply no flanking opportunities what so ever.
It would need a complete re-design, at which point it would be a different level.

Could probably handle it prior to a score screen by rigging your game to end on custom logic rather than stock building destruction logic.
So you'd end up having your players do whatever would otherwise finish the game but send this info to a 'transitional controller', linger for a few seconds, then end the game as expected. Question is can information be sent to the server for this purpose?

Hold on - you think you could create level sequences based on victory conditions of a previous level? Say the Soviets win in level 1, therefore the server jumps to level 3, where as if the Allies win the server would have jumped to level 2.
This way you could start thinking of series of thematically connected levels as a campaign sequence rather than individual levels.
I'm not saying APB would make use of that, but it would certainly open up some interesting concepts.

Yeah yeah sure, and next thing you do after you have the man get a microphone for "casual conversation", is ask if he could speak a few lines of text for no reason, absolutely no reason what so ever, nope.
PS: Sorry @BattleLaf for murdering your voice a few times, actually, I think Pushwall has some words to say as well...

Ok, I'll let you experiment as you see fit, and I will withdraw from further input on this topic, as I'm simply not the right person for it, considering that my opinion is biased.
Frankly, my design approach has had its foundation shaken in the light of recent conclusions so I need to reflect on that and deliver something the current playerbase actually enjoys before feeling confident in sharing my opinion again.

By making the naval buildings not directly face each other you create two attack possibilities; The "short and predictable route" and the "holy shit this is longer than the old HW route".
Why not save a ton of time, use the existing islands but move them significantly closer to each other while essentially cutting the icebergs out completely minus the small drifting ones with no access on top unless you fly on to them (and then murder infantry with a cold winds DoT zone).
This means no capturable objectives of any sort and infantry get delegated purely to LST/Chinook drop offs.